Questions: Society & Politics

I know this age identification thing is getting out of hand lol, but let me add context to my question:

When they asked Borges in an interview if he considered himself a man of the 19th century, he unquestionably answered, “Yes.” Borges was born in 1899.

I think it goes beyond having literally been born in that century. He despised his era; he despised what the 20th century brought to the world, so I see it more as a very conservative posture and identification rather than really meaning that he is someone from the 19th century, since he has no recollections from that century, and when we think about 20th-century figures, many of them were born in the 19th century (Hitler, Einstein, Churchill, Sartre, Kafka, Bertrand Russell, etc.). Borges did have a love for authors and philosophers of that century, and many of the anecdotes that he tells about his ancestors happened in the 19th century, so it is more of a longing than a literal identification.

So my question goes in a similar way: in what meaningful ways would you consider yourself to be a 20th-century person despite being mostly a 21st-century one? Or the world evolves so fast that it makes this impossible to answer as Borges did?

a lot of people blamed the US for instigating this attack but given that the rebels came to blows with the faction the US has boots on the ground in support of (the SDF), this is unlikely. There may be some Turkish involvement but if they were the primary instigator, the attack would have been spearheaded by the Syrian National Army (who Turkey has soldiers on the ground in support of) as opposed to HTS.

So I would say it was first and foremost the Syrian people. I'm not saying that the new regime will be better than Assad or this will make the overall geopolitical situation better, I'm just stating what I think happened.